linux-kernel - Re: Full dynticks needs evtdesc set before marking cpu online.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1305131602090.2863@ionos>
Date:	Mon, 13 May 2013 16:04:45 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>
cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Full dynticks needs evtdesc set before marking cpu online.

On Mon, 13 May 2013, Robin Holt wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:03:55PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 May 2013, Robin Holt wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:21:00AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 8 May 2013, Robin Holt wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Thomas,
> > > > > 
> > > > > We are seeing failures booting medium sized machines which I think is
> > > > > a change in expectations that dyntick put on x86's start_secondary.
> > > > > 
> > > > > During boot of cpus, we see an occassional panic in tick_do_broadcast at
> > > > 
> > > > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1305.0/01818.html
> > > > 
> > > > Will hit Linus tree soon.
> > > 
> > > I think this is really due to a sequence in start_secondary.  The cpu
> > > has been marked as online, but its evtdesc has not been initialized.
> > > I sent a followup to this with a hack/patch.
> > 
> > No, the real issue is that I messed up the cpumask conversion in the
> > broadcast code, i.e. using alloc instead of zalloc, which allocated
> > nonzeroed memory for the cpumasks, so any random bit set will crash
> > the machine. Your patch is just papering over the issue.
> 
> I believe I understand now.  What would be the downside of moving
> the initialization to before marking the cpu online?  It seems like a
> reasonable this to expect as well in spite of it not being the right
> fix to the other bug.

Yes, we can move it, but its not a required thing that the tick device
is setup befor onlining.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/